A Christian forum dedicated to the discussion of how a nation based entirely off of biblical principles ought to be like. We believe that Righteousness Exalteth a Nation, and that God's righteous hand is necessary for the blessing of any nation.

So legislature defined as a group of men who make laws not already made is wrong. Laws may only be applied to individual cases, deriving case laws as needed which do not contradict any other fundamental laws. Right?

_________________I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master. May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.

I agree. Just one question. If our motto is "Semper Reformonde," how exactly would that play out in the future, when the nation is sliding into heathenism? How could we reform? Are you talking about reform through legislature?

What I mean by this is exactly what we are doing now. In the founding of America, our forefathers used many biblical principles in deciding how to form our government. America was considered a Christian nation, though it was very flawed. It has since slipped far from its original foundation. Now, we as Christians here on this forum, are calling for reform. We are going back to the Bible for answers on how to run a nation. Perhaps we can change our nation by using the current system of government, (as the Colonists tried to do. [see Declaration of Independance.]) But, more than likely, this will not happen. In which case, we may try to found a new nation (as our forefathers did.) Just like America, it will not be perfect and, if the Lord delays His return, it will eventually be in the same situation we are in now. That is when Christians must rise up again and reform the government we established. They should try to start by doing so through the present form of government, and if unsuccessful, should start, yet another nation.

By "case laws" I hope you don't mean that when a court makes a decision, that decision now becomes law. This is one of the huge blunders of our nation today. Take two examples.

Roe vs. Wade: Because of this one case, abortion became legal according to law. This law wasn't made by the usual method used in making laws, yet now it is concrete law.

Proposition 8: I don't know if you all know it, but California brought Proposition 8 (a proposition defining marriage as between one man and one woman, thus outlawing homosexuality) to the people to vote into law. The people, thankfully, passed it. This angered the homosexuals in California, but they were reassured by the governor, not to worry, but that the courts would fix it. In other words, even though the people lawfully passed Biblical marriage as the law of California, the State Supreme Court, in one case, has the power to override this and change the law completely to allow homosexuality.

I'm not saying that there should be any law makers after a Constitution is drawn up, or that that the status quo of making laws is good. My point here, is that if you allow court decisions to become law, you will quickly usurp the Constitution and have laws made that go against the purpose of our founding a nation. Even if you have a number of checks and balances, eventually, this will be the case. Judges should always make decisions according to the law. They too are under the law. There decisions should only effect that specific case. They do not become law.

By "case laws" I hope you don't mean that when a court makes a decision, that decision now becomes law. This is one of the huge blunders of our nation today. Take two examples.

...

I'm not saying that there should be any law makers after a Constitution is drawn up, or that that the status quo of making laws is good. My point here, is that if you allow court decisions to become law, you will quickly usurp the Constitution and have laws made that go against the purpose of our founding a nation. Even if you have a number of checks and balances, eventually, this will be the case. Judges should always make decisions according to the law. They too are under the law. There decisions should only effect that specific case. They do not become law.

To God be the glory, -Caleb

Caleb,

By case law we mean an application of a certain foundational law to a certain situation that does not contradict any existing foundational law. Foundational laws are general and so are applicable to all crimes in all technology situations. So foundational laws cannot be made, altered, or retracted by anybody. But case law can be. Meaning that a judge sees a law and applies its principle to a certain case, setting that precedent for future similar cases. Case law cannot overturn a foundational law. See what I mean? What do you think?

With joy and peace in Christ,Jay Lauser

_________________I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master. May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.

By "case laws" I hope you don't mean that when a court makes a decision, that decision now becomes law. This is one of the huge blunders of our nation today. Take two examples.

...

I'm not saying that there should be any law makers after a Constitution is drawn up, or that that the status quo of making laws is good. My point here, is that if you allow court decisions to become law, you will quickly usurp the Constitution and have laws made that go against the purpose of our founding a nation. Even if you have a number of checks and balances, eventually, this will be the case. Judges should always make decisions according to the law. They too are under the law. There decisions should only effect that specific case. They do not become law.

To God be the glory, -Caleb

Caleb,

By case law we mean an application of a certain foundational law to a certain situation that does not contradict any existing foundational law. Foundational laws are general and so are applicable to all crimes in all technology situations. So foundational laws cannot be made, altered, or retracted by anybody. But case law can be. Meaning that a judge sees a law and applies its principle to a certain case, setting that precedent for future similar cases. Case law cannot overturn a foundational law. See what I mean? What do you think?

By "case laws" I hope you don't mean that when a court makes a decision, that decision now becomes law. This is one of the huge blunders of our nation today. Take two examples.

Roe vs. Wade: Because of this one case, abortion became legal according to law. This law wasn't made by the usual method used in making laws, yet now it is concrete law.

Proposition 8: I don't know if you all know it, but California brought Proposition 8 (a proposition defining marriage as between one man and one woman, thus outlawing homosexuality) to the people to vote into law. The people, thankfully, passed it. This angered the homosexuals in California, but they were reassured by the governor, not to worry, but that the courts would fix it. In other words, even though the people lawfully passed Biblical marriage as the law of California, the State Supreme Court, in one case, has the power to override this and change the law completely to allow homosexuality.

I'm not saying that there should be any law makers after a Constitution is drawn up, or that that the status quo of making laws is good. My point here, is that if you allow court decisions to become law, you will quickly usurp the Constitution and have laws made that go against the purpose of our founding a nation. Even if you have a number of checks and balances, eventually, this will be the case. Judges should always make decisions according to the law. They too are under the law. There decisions should only effect that specific case. They do not become law.

To God be the glory, -Caleb

Caleb, I can see why you might have a certain jaundiced eye toward case law. However the fact that a certain procedure has been abused does not mean that it is not a valid procedure. Judges, juries, kings, even fathers have abused their jurisdcitions. that does not invalidate their jurisdictions.

By case law we mean an application of a certain foundational law to a certain situation that does not contradict any existing foundational law. Foundational laws are general and so are applicable to all crimes in all technology situations. So foundational laws cannot be made, altered, or retracted by anybody. But case law can be. Meaning that a judge sees a law and applies its principle to a certain case, setting that precedent for future similar cases. Case law cannot overturn a foundational law. See what I mean? What do you think?

With joy and peace in Christ,Jay Lauser

I have no problem with this except for the part that the judges decision sets "that precedent for future similar cases." I think it is better that this not occur, as it can eventually drift from the original law. It is similar to translating Scripture. A true translation always goes back to the original Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek text and translates those words into the modern language. Paraphrases are no longer inspired Scripture because they reword from translations instead of going back to the original text. Or maybe a better illustration is the telephone game. The first person represents the law. Their message is the real message. The next person may pass a message that is very close to the first message, but has a slight change to it. By the end of the line the message is many times drastically different than the original. This would not happen if the first person gave the message to all of the players.

In the same way, I think it is better if all decisions made by judges come directly from the law and are not influenced by other rulings, even if the case may be similar. This not only better defends against the current slippery slope of our courts today, but it makes for stronger rulings. The decision is made strictly by the law and not by the law through several other men.

By case law we mean an application of a certain foundational law to a certain situation that does not contradict any existing foundational law. Foundational laws are general and so are applicable to all crimes in all technology situations. So foundational laws cannot be made, altered, or retracted by anybody. But case law can be. Meaning that a judge sees a law and applies its principle to a certain case, setting that precedent for future similar cases. Case law cannot overturn a foundational law. See what I mean? What do you think?

With joy and peace in Christ,Jay Lauser

I have no problem with this except for the part that the judges decision sets "that precedent for future similar cases." I think it is better that this not occur, as it can eventually drift from the original law. It is similar to translating Scripture. A true translation always goes back to the original Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek text and translates those words into the modern language. Paraphrases are no longer inspired Scripture because they reword from translations instead of going back to the original text. Or maybe a better illustration is the telephone game. The first person represents the law. Their message is the real message. The next person may pass a message that is very close to the first message, but has a slight change to it. By the end of the line the message is many times drastically different than the original. This would not happen if the first person gave the message to all of the players.

In the same way, I think it is better if all decisions made by judges come directly from the law and are not influenced by other rulings, even if the case may be similar. This not only better defends against the current slippery slope of our courts today, but it makes for stronger rulings. The decision is made strictly by the law and not by the law through several other men.

To God be the glory,-Caleb

While I agree with much of your points, your conclusion misses an important point. People have to be able to know what the law is. If, for example, one judge makes the ruling that going over 70 mph down a certain road is dangerous (and I leave it to you to find the law that is underlying) and then the next judge says that 60 is dangerous... how are the citizens to know how to drive?

Obviously a bad interpretation is a bad interpretation, and that needs to be able to be fix. We need always 'semper refermada'. But at the same time we cannot leave the citizens hanging.

From a quick study of the Hebrew text, I think it is safe to say that the seventy elders or leaders appointed by Moses to rule the people or be chiefs over them, is right along the lines of them acting as a jury. Therefore, I think a legislature is a body of elected or appointed men who are to deem suspects of crimes innocent or guilty. The judge must then decide the punishment or release of the suspect based on the legislature's decision. In a sense then, the legislature holds the supreme power of the state, as suggested by Webster, and rules the people, as suggested by Scripture.

While I agree with much of your points, your conclusion misses an important point. People have to be able to know what the law is. If, for example, one judge makes the ruling that going over 70 mph down a certain road is dangerous (and I leave it to you to find the law that is underlying) and then the next judge says that 60 is dangerous... how are the citizens to know how to drive?

Obviously a bad interpretation is a bad interpretation, and that needs to be able to be fix. We need always 'semper refermada'. But at the same time we cannot leave the citizens hanging.

All I'm saying is that judges should not look to other judges decisions as any basis or influence in their decision of a case. They should always go back to the law. In your example above, the judge's decision which was the result of bad interpretation can be fixed. However, his decision, or any other judges decision must not be based off of the first judge's ruling, but only from the law. This specific example is a little touchy, because it falls under the category of the Utilities discussion. We have not determined if the government even has a right to restrict speed limits. I hope this makes sense. I may have to try to clarify again when I have more time.

From a quick study of the Hebrew text, I think it is safe to say that the seventy elders or leaders appointed by Moses to rule the people or be chiefs over them, is right along the lines of them acting as a jury. Therefore, I think a legislature is a body of elected or appointed men who are to deem suspects of crimes innocent or guilty. The judge must then decide the punishment or release of the suspect based on the legislature's decision. In a sense then, the legislature holds the supreme power of the state, as suggested by Webster, and rules the people, as suggested by Scripture.

To God be the glory,-Caleb

I hate to keep us busy discussing a non-Scriptural word:1) Legislature is not a word used in Scripture2) It means a body of lawmakers.

While I agree with much of your points, your conclusion misses an important point. People have to be able to know what the law is. If, for example, one judge makes the ruling that going over 70 mph down a certain road is dangerous (and I leave it to you to find the law that is underlying) and then the next judge says that 60 is dangerous... how are the citizens to know how to drive?

Obviously a bad interpretation is a bad interpretation, and that needs to be able to be fix. We need always 'semper refermada'. But at the same time we cannot leave the citizens hanging.

All I'm saying is that judges should not look to other judges decisions as any basis or influence in their decision of a case. They should always go back to the law. In your example above, the judge's decision which was the result of bad interpretation can be fixed. However, his decision, or any other judges decision must not be based off of the first judge's ruling, but only from the law. This specific example is a little touchy, because it falls under the category of the Utilities discussion. We have not determined if the government even has a right to restrict speed limits. I hope this makes sense. I may have to try to clarify again when I have more time.

To God be the glory,-Caleb

As I said, there is an underlying, Biblical, law. And you don't address the point I bought up.

You're right, the Bible doesn't use the word legislature. It also doesn't use the words Christian, Bible, or missionary. Yet we find these concepts in Scripture. So it's OK to use a word that the Bible doesn't as long as we properly define it. You're defining legislature how modern culture defines it. We are using the biblical concept of elders, rulers, or chiefs, along with the second part of Webster's original definition to define legislature. We use the word legislature because it is more familiar to modern people than elder, ruler, or chief. But we are trying to reclaim the meaning and role of a legislator. Elder, ruler, and chief also carry connotations that may be misleading to their originally intended definition. So there is no advantage to calling them elder, ruler, or chief as these labels would have to be redefined as well. Hope that helps.

Another interesting point. Should legislators be appointed or voted into office? Should they serve a term or their lifetime (or at least till they retire)? Should there be a set number of legislators or a ratio based off of population? To God be the glory,-Caleb

You're right, the Bible doesn't use the word legislature. It also doesn't use the words Christian, Bible, or missionary. Yet we find these concepts in Scripture. So it's OK to use a word that the Bible doesn't as long as we properly define it. You're defining legislature how modern culture defines it. We are using the biblical concept of elders, rulers, or chiefs, along with the second part of Webster's original definition to define legislature. We use the word legislature because it is more familiar to modern people than elder, ruler, or chief. But we are trying to reclaim the meaning and role of a legislator. Elder, ruler, and chief also carry connotations that may be misleading to their originally intended definition. So there is no advantage to calling them elder, ruler, or chief as these labels would have to be redefined as well. Hope that helps.

Another interesting point. Should legislators be appointed or voted into office? Should they serve a term or their lifetime (or at least till they retire)? Should there be a set number of legislators or a ratio based off of population? To God be the glory,-Caleb

No, it doesn't help. You insist on using a non-Biblical word, to fit a non-Biblical concept.

The term, and the concept, of 'elder' are in Scripture. The term is not familiar to modern Americans, because the concept isn't. In fact, it flies in the face of modern American sensibilities.

I stand on Scripture, and against the term, or the concept, of a legislature.

Oh, and the word Bible is merely an English translation of the word 'Scripture'. However if it bothers you, I will use 'Scripture' instead. I usually do.

And it is actually rather problematic to say that the concept of 'missionary' is found in Scripture (see, I used it). The term, as it is used today (and I say this having been a missionary) may well represent a non-Scriptural concept.

I am not cheating.... okay, maybe a little... your fault though, you are the one revealing your hand ahead of time.

caleb wrote:

Another interesting point. Should legislators be appointed or voted into office? Should they serve a term or their lifetime (or at least till they retire)? Should there be a set number of legislators or a ratio based off of population? To God be the glory,-Caleb

Caleb,

The examples I used in the Bible were all appointed, by Moses or the King. The only hesitation I have in saying that they should all be appointed is what leader would be wise enough to appoint them? But, I also believe appointing them is better than voting them in for the simple fact that the leaders are not most likely not (depending on the one doing the appointing) going to be put into the office based on bribes and popularity.

They should be appointed for life or until they retire. That way we have consistent and hopefully wiser representation in the legislature. Also, I don't believe the ones appointed in the Bible were for terms but for their life time or until retired.

As far as numbers go, if we draw our reference from the Bible, there would be two legislatures, one based on population and one a set number. (This is one thing I believe the US got right in their organization of government) You have the 70 elders appointed by Moses and then the leaders appointed over groups of tens, hundreds, thousands, and ten thousands. For numbers, there should be two legislatures, one with each system for balance.

In Christ,Hannah

_________________If you accept my words and store up my commands within you, turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding, and if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding; and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God. Proverbs 2:1-5

In the same way, I think it is better if all decisions made by judges come directly from the law and are not influenced by other rulings, even if the case may be similar. This not only better defends against the current slippery slope of our courts today, but it makes for stronger rulings. The decision is made strictly by the law and not by the law through several other men.

To God be the glory,-Caleb

Yes, I agree with this statement, Caleb.

_________________If you accept my words and store up my commands within you, turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding, and if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding; and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God. Proverbs 2:1-5

In the same way, I think it is better if all decisions made by judges come directly from the law and are not influenced by other rulings, even if the case may be similar. This not only better defends against the current slippery slope of our courts today, but it makes for stronger rulings. The decision is made strictly by the law and not by the law through several other men.

(??) I could be really wrong, but all of the Biblical references to the 'seventy' elders seem to be not a separate group of people, but a group chosen out of the already recognized 'elders of Israel'. Try again Hannah

I like your ideas in part Hannah. I'll have to do some study on them to verify if I whole-heartedly agree with them. It brings up an interesting point as well. Do we need a head leader like a president, prime minister, or king? Or do we just need a head judge like Moses? Another problem. (I am anticipating the answer that we need a head judge like Moses.) How does he get into office. As far as Moses is concerned, he was appointed by God. That's not happening anymore, nor will it happen again. (I mean a direct appointment like what Moses experienced. Obviously we all agree that God sovereignly appoints kings and rulers in the eternal scheme of things.) Should the people vote this judge into office? Should he too be appointed? If so, by whom? Is he the one that appoints all of the "70 elders" or legislators and the "rulers [or legislators] over tens, hundreds, thousands, etc"? In regards to this last group of legislators, what should we do? Do we appoint one for ever ten people, another for every hundred, etc.? Or a different numbering system? Have fun answering!